The Instigator
zach12
Pro (for)
Winning
110 Points
The Contender
Galiban
Con (against)
Losing
75 Points

Children shouldn't be pressured or forced to accept their parents' religion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+13
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/28/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 14,116 times Debate No: 7154
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (61)
Votes (33)

 

zach12

Pro

I stand in affirmation.

Children should get to choose for themselves which religion, or none at all, that they wish to participate in. Parents should expose children to all different types of faith and ultimately let the kids decide instead of the parents deciding.

Let's just say hypothetically that Christianity is the one true faith. Then the Christian parents seem to have done the right thing in forcing their kids to be Christian. They just saved the kids and ensured their place in heaven!

But that still leaves out 4 billion people.

The 4 billion Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Buddhists, and the members of the countless other religious groups would be screwed and condemned to an eternity in hell for failing to believe in Jesus Christ as the savior of the human race.

This is all because their parents were Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Buddhist and Sikh (mostly, I know there are some people who switch religions). Their parents hugely affected their ultimate destiny.

Whole groups of people emigrated from Europe to the New World to avoid religious persecution and forced religion. Now parents are creating a mini-Europe for each of their children.

That's all I will say for now. Good luck to whomever accepts this debate if anyone.
Galiban

Con

Zach!
Very interesting debate! This should be fun and an exciting challenge.

Christians do not view Christianity as a religion but a personal relationship with God.
I realize you view Christianity as a religion so for the purpose of the debate I will not contend with your classification unless necessary.

As to children I am also assuming you are meaning that we should not raise them in the structures of doctrines. I do not think any religion outside of Islam forces a child after the "age of accountability" to conform to its religion but other religions may strongly recommend their "religion" based upon a set criteria. You might classify this as pressure.

So I will understand you to mean to teach children the essential elements of their faith from a very early age and constantly teaching them more as they grow, this teaching them before they ever have a choice for or against the concept within the religion.

Your resolution is stating ultimately you believe this is somehow a "bad thing". Your resolution is stating this is as something that should always NOT be done. (I only know of the Muslim religion that "forces" retention after the "age of accountability".)

Here is a concept for teaching younger Children. I heard this some years ago…

A man was attending a private school parent's introduction course. The Instructor was regaling all of the parents with the intense curriculum of the Kindergarten through 12th grade.
The instructor started with the incredible science behind the development of hand eye coordination programs and the instilled exercise routine of 1st through 3rd grades.
He explained with vast detail the great lengths they went to in instilling a love for science, math and art that would propel all of the 4th through 9th graders on. It was a massive program that calculated every step and minute throughout the years and classes.
Finally the instructor after nearly an hour of a very intense explanation of the High School grade levels directives for driving and educating the students in advanced sciences and literature, even delved into the technical aspects of a mass variety of specialization.
It was truly amazing.

After the instructor finished his precise presentation he smiled and asked "Any questions?" The entire audience burst out laughing. The whole presentation was so detailed and so well articulated that the audience as one, thought a question about the programming would be absurd!

The man at the start of this retelling slowly raised his hand. "I do have a question. What Kind of Man will my son be?"

The instructor's smile slowly left his face and was replaced by a quizzical look "I do not know what you mean."

The man clearing his throat spoke up "Well, everything you have detailed out sounds absolutely wonderful. I think everyone here is incredibly impressed with the lengths you all will go to teach our children. But my question is, when my son grows up to become a man, what kind of man will he be? A good man? A patient and loving father? A self serving wretch?"

The instructor's face became quite solemn. "I have no idea."

The man nodded yes. "I thank you for your candor and honesty, but your answer scares the hell out of me."

This short recap of the understanding that had so much impact on me is quite vivid. Secular humanism struggles to make a physically and mentally sound person but outright neglects spirituality and morality.
Without a moral compass what are you suggesting children choose? Without a personal relationship with God what are you suggesting children choose?

By you (Zach) agreeing with the resolution you are suggesting that morality comes from something that is inherent within man rather than something that is taught to them. This is proven false by history.
Christians disagree with the Nazi value system. We do so because of objective moral values given to us by God. It is not incumbent upon a person to AGREE with objective moral values, it is entirely by choice. Enough of the German people agreed with the Darwinist moral value system they then adopted it. They actually killed off people when they became a "drain" on society, they called them "eaters".
Objective moral values are defined as values that have a transcendent authority. Many people choose against moral values. Having a personal relationship with the God that created those values is necessary to live them fully.
Teaching your children those moral values is necessary to have a full relationship with God. I have 4 children under the age of 4. They are incredibly obedient and have not experienced the "terrible twos" or threes for that matter.
It is through teaching them the basics of Christianity and obedience to God that has done this.

Without a clear moral and spiritual compass we see many cultures like the Nazi's that culminate in a "self" orientated society. Why would this be a benefit to NOT show the ramifications and instruct my children?

Spirituality is a necessary function to understand who God is. This is also not something someone will inherently discover without guidance.
Here is the concept:
""My Father is great! He is the founder of an entire Nation of people who do nothing but try to aid people if they allow Him along with us and my older brother is the Leader of that nation.""

This is an incredible claim! How can you possibly understand that and believe it right off the bat? It takes education. The same can be said for the basics of life right up to the Supernatural. You see a car but to interact with it requires education. When you were 15 you didn't jump right in the car and do a 3000 mile stint. All things require education to interact with it. Even the metaphysical like marriage falls under this system. The physical, metaphysical and the supernatural require education. Some things are can be "argued" as inherently known (by a discrepancy of definition) but the deeper things are all learned.

In summary all children are a direct product of what they have been taught. All people are a sum total of what they have been taught. You do not know ANYTHING you were NOT taught. Simply put even your belief as Pro to the resolution was something you heard. You choose to believe it. Children choose to believe a religion or reject it. The pressure is purely in the ramifications of a choice or belief.

Deuteronomy 6:4-8 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 5 You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes…
Debate Round No. 1
zach12

Pro

Thank you Galiban for accepting my debate and good luck.

I disagree with your very first statement. Protestants may see Christianity as a personal relationship with God, but over half the Christians, the Roman Catholics, see it as a religion. This is obvious to me because I went to a Catholic School for eight years and continue to go (against my will of course) to Catholic mass every Sunday.

There is never a word spoken about a personal relationship with God.

Then you go and change the subject and talk about assuming that I mean children living in a doctrine. You then talk about religions forcing children in the religion to do things. This was not what I was talking about at all as should be abundantly clear from my first post.

I was strictly talking about parents' influence over their children's' religious choices in the home.

Jesus gave his life apparently so that those who believe in him could be saved. Not those who are forced to believe and don't know anything else.

Just the other day I asked one of my friends whether he had ever looked into any other religion than Lutheran denomination's beliefs he had been spoonfed his whole life.

He said "Other religions don't make any sense, the Muslims are terrorists and I don't want to be a monk in China or whatever."

This shows all the propaganda and biased Christian influence over him. He knows nothing about other religions other than what he has seen on the news and has no interest in improving his knowledge. I told him how remarkably similar the teaching of kindness and virtue of the Muslims and he wouldn't believe it in the face of strong evidence.

This is almost the exact definition of delusion. He is being deluded by the Christian Church.

Then my opponent gives an irrelevant example of an amazing secular school program that does not teach morals. This is the exact opposite of what public schools really do.

Public secular schools have classes on ethics, morality, and making good choices. They get to see that making good ethical choices don't have to have anything to do with religion and can see they are necessary regardless.

Then my opponent assumes my resolution means that I believe religion is horrible and should have no place in the world. I never said this once. I said that they should get to choose which religion they wish to participate in and find their own moral compass.

I agree with my opponent that religious and moral values must be taught. But they need to be taught in a way that doesn't force the values on them. They need to be taught the values of every major religion and decide for themselves which makes the most sense, if any at all.

Children are not a direct product of what they have been taught. There has been a lot of research saying that the neighborhood and peers have much more effect on a child than the family and family setting. Check out these sources for more info on that:

The Nurture Assumption by Judith Harris
The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I know plenty of things I wasn't taught. I have looked them up myself and I'm glad as hell that I did. Now I have some perspective instead of the brainwash presented to me by the Christians.

I look forward to my opponent's arguments and wish her luck. Vote Pro!
Galiban

Con

""Protestants may see Christianity as a personal relationship with God, but over half the Christians, the Roman Catholics, see it as a religion.""

My father in law (evangelical catholic) would intensely disagree with you. I think you may need to talk with a priest and I do not believe that you have had a discussion with an intensely devout Catholic. Catholics follow the precepts of the Bible and understand that Christianity is entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ who is man in the triune person of God.
Anyone that denies this should not consider themselves Christian, which Catholics fall into that greater category. There is no such thing as being a bad Christian to God.
Quote from this Catholic Youth Teaching:
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net...
"We need to see it in in terms personal encounter and dialogue. God invites each of us into a living and personal relationship of love, in order to discover the true meaning and joy of life."

Christianity does not deviate here. I am sorry for your childhood experience that did not have this focus. Most Catholics agree that is a failing in their church to rear their children with a background that stops backsliding as you have done. It only strengthens my point that without the adequate knowledge of the Bible from your parents you have fallen away from the Faith that you should have been grounded in. That PROVES my point.

Word usage or terminology might vary from Protestants to Catholics, but they would find your classification a severe affront to put them in the same league as a Muslim. They do understand that God is a person and a relationship is His intent.

""I was strictly talking about parents' influence over their children's' religious choices in the home.""
So was I.
Let me be clear. When a child is in the home under the parents authority they are remanded to the rules of the parents.

""Then my opponent assumes my resolution means that I believe religion is horrible and should have no place in the world. I never said this once""
This is called political dancing.
Here is what you stated also:

"This is almost the exact definition of delusion. He is being deluded by the Christian Church."

Your animosity and reasoning is clear from all of your other statements without the need for a clear declaration from you. I realize you are avoiding the declaration to avoid being "hung" on the statement.

The problem with your viewpoint is you must assume something negative is being done for the Resolution to be true.

Your attempt to address the lack of need for religion to set morality is lacking a couple of key things though well thought out.

"Public secular schools have classes on ethics, morality, and making good choices."
I would sincerely disagree with you.

It is not a mandatory federal core class requirement for a High School Diploma. Though very few schools may have recently added it to the elective lists, it is not anywhere near mandatory.
http://www.americanschoolofcorr.com...
Here is just one list for a diploma that is certified by the Federal government.

However lets even assume that it might be something mandatory in the future. How does a class or two replace the necessary daily instruction of objective moral values? I also believe I need to reiterate the definition of objective moral values; I do not think you understood from your rebuttal.

Objective moral values are morals that are built into the fabric of the universe, that are valid and binding whether anyone believes in them or not.

The video from Dr. William Lane Craig should explain the entire concept.

The Christian Church teaches these moral values always. There are no objective moral or spiritual values if there is no God. The previous biblical quote shows the importance the Church places on raising children in that concept.

"I agree with my opponent that religious and moral values must be taught. But they need to be taught in a way that doesn't force the values on them. They need to be taught the values of every major religion and decide for themselves which makes the most sense, if any at all."

This statement is incredibly disturbing. It is on par with "you must experience murder to decide if it is REALLY wrong."
Or stated a different way; should we then allow Chaos should the children decide to choose chaotic moral value system? How about pyromania is ok to these people so try and go for it?

I think that you are not suggesting the above. I sincerely hope you are not.

If you are not then WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING is that someone should decide what are good values and what are bad and then give everyone ample decision making on those. That is exactly what Christianity does. We teach the correct way and then the wrong way. We do not allow our children to EXPERIENCE the wrong way to know that it is wrong.

Ultimately Christianity does teach the accurate way thus showing all the wrong ways in the process. IF you know the Christian teaching then you will learn the wrong way of other religious moral and spiritual value systems.

We as Christians encourage learning other religions value systems to show how they are really wrong, when they are old enough to effectively reason.

1 Peter 3: 15
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,"

We do not allow Children to experience those systems to validate the "wrongness" of them until they leave our home. You can call this force or pressure but it is entirely restrictive necessity.

For your last point:

"There has been a lot of research saying that the neighborhood and peers have much more effect on a child than the family and family setting."
Peers and the neighborhood children being an influence on children is nothing new. It is outright wrong to allow an 14 year old to teach your 14 year old. It would be foolishness. You are being taught whenever you are taking something in. From a friend, parent or teacher. You did not know it until you saw it.

"I know plenty of things I wasn't taught. I have looked them up myself and I'm glad as hell that I did."
You were still taught these things. Whether from a book or any other avenue it was still learning something from someone.

So we have seen that Parents should pressure their children with their moral and spiritual values, the younger ones may need to have a forceful application like a spanking, these following reasons stand undaunted:
The children are under the authority of the parents and must abide by their understanding and teaching. We do not and should not allow our Children to "Experience" the wrong way to know it is wrong.
Children should not be allowed to "Test" what moral values are good or bad until the age of accountability. (Murder all the way down to dating)
Authority is there to protect. You would certainly feel sheepish if you allowed your 14 year old to "experience" The Satanic Churches orgies and he contracted an STD and died or allowed them to hang out with Gang members to then get Shot.
Objective Moral values are necessary to be taught by parents. The parents are the only ones confirmed (some exceptions) to have the best interest of the children at heart. The gang members down the street odds are do not, China shows the state does not. It is a God ordained system of Love and nurture.
Spiritual values are True with one single Truth as the overruling Truth, teaching your children to have a relationship with God not allowing them to deviate is necessary command of God should you wish to ensure they do not depart from morals or the spiritual truth of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Debate Round No. 2
zach12

Pro

Thank you Galiban once again

I have talked with an enormous amount of devout Catholics, and they never say a thing about personal relationships with Jesus. We talk about being a Church Community who interacts with Jesus through the priest.

I have watched your video and it is hilarious. This man's only claim is that "deep down we all know there are objective moral values." That's his whole argument.

Personal relationships with God are the stuff of Evangelicals, not Catholics. There's nothing wrong with having said personal relationship but it is not stressed in the Catholic Church. But we are getting onto the wrong topic, this debate is about parents.

>>> Christianity does not deviate here. I am sorry for your childhood experience that did not have this focus. Most Catholics agree that is a failing in their church to rear their children with a background that stops backsliding as you have done. It only strengthens my point that without the adequate knowledge of the Bible from your parents you have fallen away from the Faith that you should have been grounded in. That PROVES my point. <<<

This does NOT prove his point. I HAVE the adequate knowledge of the bible. I know about the Garden of Eden, the serpent, the curse of God to make childbirth a painful experience. I know about the Great Flood, Cain and Abel, The Annunciation of Mary, Jesus' first miracle at the wedding, the siege of Jerusalem and the fall of the walls. I know about how the earth shook and the tapestry in the Temple split. I know about the two men on either side of Jesus on the Cross. Must I go on? I know about the bible. I have fallen away from the faith for a couple of reasons.

1.) It is all made up
2.) I was forced into it
3.) Life makes much more sense without a God

Then my opponent says the faith should have been ground in. That's like going up to a kid and saying "I know you hate football Billy, but I'm a mean parent and I'm making you do it anyway! Aren't you excited?"

This is pure and utter torture of the cruel and unusual sort.

I was in no way associating Muslims and Christians in my previous post despite their similar teachings with just basically switching God for Allah. I realize there is a whole different culture there.

>>> let me be clear. When a child is in the home under the parents authority they are remanded to the rules of the parents. <<<

I am aware of this. However I am debating their right to this authority.

>>> This is called political dancing. <<<

I said one particular person was deluded by the Christian Faith. I would have had no problem with it if his faith had been presented to him in merely a possible manner. If they would have said "This is how we think it works. We may be wrong and you have every right to switch religions but I strongly believe this is the way and the truth."

But instead this is what they do:

"God definitely died on Christmas day and our faith is undoubtedly correct."

See the difference?

>>> The problem with your viewpoint is you must assume something negative is being done for the Resolution to be true. <<<

There are lots of negative things about religion. Parents forcing kids into Judaism caused their deaths in the Holocaust. There have been uncountable persecutions on the basis of Religious beliefs and this continues. Just look at the turmoil in the Middle East.

Now for a more direct and close to home example:

For this one I will be using this website as a resource
http://voices.washingtonpost.com...

The child's father was trying to force circumcision and Judaism onto his child and luckily his mother came to his defense. The child was afraid to say he didn't want the procedure or the Religion.

http://atheism.about.com...

This source demonstrates the benefits Ireland has and will be receiving from switching to secularism and putting an end to parents forcing religion.

Then my opponent refuses to accept that most schools have incorporated classes on ethics and good choices. Maybe this is because he hasn't been in school for a decade or more. In my old school in Omaha our school mascot was a bulldog so naturally we had something called bulldog block which taught us to respect everyone, follow the law, and be good, prosperous citizens. In my new school in Iowa we have something called "advisory" which is basically the same thing and these both are mandatory. These were both public schools.

This debate has devolved into whether or not Christianity is correct about objective moral values (OMV). Whether or not these values exist is unclear. Christians are unable to prove it and it seems unlikely considering how rough the animal world is. If there were these universal moral values imbedded in this world why do we see animals eating each other alive and committing heinous acts such as cannibalism and such? Even if these values only apply to humans it is still very unlikely they do exist.

Morality is illusory, which is another reason religion shouldn't be forced on children.

>>> This statement is incredibly disturbing. It is on par with "you must experience murder to decide if it is REALLY wrong."
Or stated a different way; should we then allow Chaos should the children decide to choose chaotic moral value system? How about pyromania is ok to these people so try and go for it? <<<

This isn't what I meant at all. What I meant was that the values of each religion be presented to the kids and they decide which path to take. Murder is an unrealistic comparison. There are still laws and that wouldn't change if kids weren't forced to accept religion.

Then my opponent aloofly says Christianity is the "accurate" system. We have absolutely no way of knowing if it is the right way and teaching potentially incorrect things to kids is wrong and irresponsible.

Then my opponent says other religions have wrong moral values and that Christians teach this "fact" to their children.

Muslims teach the importance of almsgiving to the needy, fasting, kindness, and living your whole life according to the rules of Allah.
http://www.islam101.com...

Hindus teach that marriage is a sacrament, just as Christianity does. They teach karma, that you need to do good acts or bad acts will come back at you. They
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Shinto people believe you must live a harmonious life with nature and people
http://en.wikipedia.org...

This has demonstrated that these religions do not have these "wrong moral values" my opponent says they do.

I disagree with this statement of my opponent's >>> You are being taught whenever you are taking something in. From a friend, parent or teacher. You did not know it until you saw it. <<<

I am not being taught when I think up something for myself or look it up on the internet. I am learning, but I am not being taught.

Lol gang members have nothing to do with religion. Good try though Galiban.

I am not saying you should let your fourteen year old experience satanic orgies and get an STD. This was not the meaning of the whole debate.

Leaving the Christian Faith is not the end of morals as my opponent states.

That's all I have, thanks for reading vote PRO!
Galiban

Con

Zach,
I am gonna drop the Catholic relationship point. It is not productive to the debate but I have quoted Catholic teaching, I myself am a Biblical Scholar, what more can I say? It shows you had bad teaching. It explains why today you are not a Christian. Your lack of understanding is the reason why you left the Christian faith.

Objective Moral Values – I believe again you may not understand the purpose of OMV's and how they pertain.

What you are proposing- A Parent should not have the authority to teach their children their own personal moral values but must teach them everyone else's.

You are stating that your own personal beliefs outweigh the beliefs of the parents. By what authority is your belief system more correct than theirs?

By what authority or by what right do you claim your accuracy? You simply put have no claim. If you claim common consensus then you hit the Nazi problem. By common consensus they were able to murder millions because it suited their belief system.

By what authority (what makes you inherently right that everyone should agree) can you claim your personal belief system of "parents having to teach other moral and spiritual values" as superior? In essence you have none.

Christianity has objective moral value system that is predicated upon God ordaining it.
Nazi's were wrong whether or not they agreed with being wrong. Murdering countless people is Really Wrong.

This seals your problem. A society can only then by force assert their beliefs on the parents they disagree with. As with Ireland.
You have a fallacy here. The parents do not agree with you. You then have to force them to teach what you believe to be true. Thus you are in turn using the very "wrongful force" that the resolution states is bad.
You essentially have no authority but the common consensus of (peers, friends, prisoners, the government of Ireland?) that parents should not do this. To force them to teach what you want causes the exact same complaint you had. Who would be right and who would be wrong?

Objective Moral Values do exist. It is why so many people believe in a God right off. They know inherently there are things that are just really wrong. Christianity teaches that system and cultivates that system of evaluation. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This shows the very wrong of something that is really wrong. It is completely logical. Without this way of thinking on how to act with others, you have a problem. If you can do something wrong to someone and be ok with that event you have rejected those moral values that are REALLY right.

If morals are illusory then this world doesn't work properly. The Illusory argument has not been used for a very long time in open forum debates. Most atheists do not tackle it.

This brings us to the statement:
"I am not saying you should let your fourteen year old experience satanic orgies and get an STD"
At what point and for what reason do you get the knowledge or rationale as to which religion is accurate? You claim the children should learn the various religions but which ones? The safe ones like Christianity or the dangerous ones like Islam or the really destructive ones like Church of Satan or ones that lead to drug usage and addiction to heighten the senses like free love?

By what authority/rationale/inherency do you claim superior knowledge of these things?

The Parents do claim superior knowledge.

My next point addresses your saying you have biblical teaching and understanding.

I would disagree with your fundamental understanding of both the Christianity you should have been taught and the muslim faith you are appealing to.

Even Catholics disagree with you on the Muslims.

The beheadings(1), woman gang rapes(2), religious intolerance(3 from a Catholic perspective) predicated on the belief that Christians and Jews should be killed, I would keep going but I believe the point was made.

It shows that your fundamental understanding of Religion does not agree with the application of those religions. Wait! If Christians got in charge there might be rampant churches that sing all day long and help the poor. That would suck!

To really drive home my point, knowing the stories does not mean you understand Christianity. Jesus Christ spent much of his ministry rebuking the Jews, who had the Old Testament, for being outright wrong in their biblical interpretation. Christians know that God personally holds people responsible for accurate Biblical interpretation.

"Parents forcing kids into Judaism caused their deaths in the Holocaust"
Wow.
You are born Jewish. They were killed because of their racial distinction not their religion. This is still an absurd statement even if they were killed for their religion. A mad man's desire to kill comes is not the fault of the religion but the mad man.

"Murder is an unrealistic comparison"
Islamic religion teaches Murder is ok. They define the circumstances that makes this ok. Do we let them try it to find out if the Muslims are right by killing their infidel parents? Do we let our 14 year old go out and commit gang rapes because according to the Muslim religion it is acceptable to rape the "deserving" women? It is all in context of Religion.

"We have absolutely no way of knowing if it is the right way and teaching potentially incorrect things to kids is wrong and irresponsible."
Another subjective statement. If Christianity is the right one then you have unwittingly lead millions to their dooms in Hell. How do you know? Or at the very least you have lead millions to religions that kill with rewards, like Muslims. But whats a few million victims between religions?

"Muslims teach the importance of almsgiving to the needy, fasting, kindness, and living your whole life according to the rules of Allah."
Sure they do. That is why all of the Muslim controlled societies are absolute utopian societies ensuring the needy are fulfilled. Want to visit Garbage City in Cairo? It is the only safe place for Christians.
http://discussion.socalskateparks.com...

"Hindus teach that marriage is a sacrament, just as Christianity does"
We must be great brethren! That is why they are killing off entire villages of Christians in Orissa! They just want to send us to Heaven faster. What great people.
http://persecution.in...

Shinto - Harmony with Nature? In comparison to Christianity that is a weak definition of Good.

To summarize:
Parents should not be forced to teach their Children those religious views that go against Objective Moral Values. We do not allow parents of other religions to teach their children that gang rapes are ok. If we discover this we take the children away. Same for Honor Killings, murder, women street beatings etc. This is why Christians do not believe the Gospel is only important for life after death but for life before death as well.

We do not allow the Followers of Molech to sacrifice their children by fire. It is not just happenstance that the common consensus in America is in agreement. All of the Children of the country are taught Objective Moral Standards. How many schools have the "Golden Rule" posted in the classroom? Where do you think that comes from?
Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you."
Go to Iran and you will find something very different being taught.

In America traditionally we have only allowed Christian Moral Standards to be taught to children or when those moral standards from other religions match our own. You have freedom of worship within reason.

(1)http://www.meforum.org...
(2) http://www.frontpagemag.com...
(3) http://www.seattlecatholic.com...
Debate Round No. 3
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by laughingman 6 years ago
laughingman
A child should most definatly not be pressured into a religion especially by their parents they should not really be shown the choic until later in life showing them at such a young age would surely encourage them one way or another whether the parents where trying to push their child into religion or not the fact both their parents were strongly religious would make them feel as if htey had to be religious. I'm sixteen and i barely understand why religions came about or which religion i shoud chose but my parents have never pushed them on me which meant i had the choice. Which in my opinion is key having the choice.
Posted by Jesusrules 6 years ago
Jesusrules
Children should hear about God and his word and how to get to heaven, but it is still their choice to accept it. If it is forced, it has no true meaning. If you are forced to love someone, would you actually love them?
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
Other than the negative, biased comments against Islam I really quite enjoyed reading this. At this point, I'm not really sure who to vote for...
Posted by Galiban 7 years ago
Galiban
Let me know your thoughts when you are done reading then.
Posted by InsertNameHere 7 years ago
InsertNameHere
This seems interesting. I was brought up in a household which was supportive of allowing the freedom of religious choice. I feel this has benefited me as I was able to explore other religions free from biased viewpoints being presented by my parents.
Posted by de10011 7 years ago
de10011
Galiban's opinion seem bigoted. I find his statements about Islam offensive, bordering on libel.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
This debate, for me, was muddled. I am really unsure of whom to vote for, mostly because neither debater hit the nail on the head, so to speak. I will probably abstain, simply because my instinctual temptation is to vote pro, but only because of previously held ideology, which is the problem Roy highlighted earlier in the comments :)
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
zip, My parents were not extreme Christians, so I was not subject to any extraordinary pressure. Had that been the case, I'm sure I would have been as upset as anyone.

There are many ways that parents can be wrong other than being religious extremists. They can be racists, homophobes, conspiracy theorists, paranoids, and so forth. So perhaps we should assert, "Parents should not pressure children to have wrong beliefs of any kind." That is only possible if parents know what beliefs they have are right and which are wrong. Sometimes parents know they have wrong beliefs, or at least wrong habits -- they might be smokers or druggies and trying to discourage their children from making similar mistakes. But in those cases, the parents know at some level that they are or were wrong. So how do parents avoid teaching children what they believe to be right?

There is only one way to avoid teaching a possible error. That is to teach as close to nothing as possible. There are parents of the modern liberal persuasion who advocate exactly that. They say that they want their children to form their own opinions when they get old enough to do so. That flatly does not work. It just allows peers and media to fill the void. They will learn from TV, pop music, and the kids down the street. That is inferior to parents to parents doing their best.
Posted by zippo12321 7 years ago
zippo12321
I think RoyLatham's view is off a bit... I also grew up with extreme Christian parents, and I saw how manipulative religion can be. Parents absolutely shouldn't brainwash their kids to believe anything that isn't fact-based. Inspiring delusion in children is wrong. I'll "lay low" for something that isn't so immoral, but confusing a child to believe that no other fairy-tales are true except the one about "The Magical Jesus" is disgusting.
Posted by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
Any resolution beginning "Children shouldn't be pressured ..." has a good chance of succeeding on this site regardless of what follows. Parents, I think, are always obligated to teach children what they think is best. The worst thing parents can possibly do is leave it to peers and pop culture to shape opinions. Both my parents believed in God and made it clear they thought that was correct. I became an atheist early on, but I was not openly defiant. I think that's a good approach. Lay low.
33 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: counter VB s & Zach12 VB for himself, (in those days one could vote on his own debate.). While Galiban, did not vote at all, & rightly so. Others should counter the other VBs
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by silverynekochan 6 years ago
silverynekochan
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by marimo 6 years ago
marimo
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Nova 7 years ago
Nova
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by abromwell 7 years ago
abromwell
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by studentathletechristian8 7 years ago
studentathletechristian8
zach12GalibanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07